Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

I also said I never called anyone a homophobe/homo-hater. Also, my views have nothing to do with my being gay. I would've felt the same if I was heterosexual. If that's having an agenda, then I have an agenda. Not that pointing out the 'smuttiest' pictures out of several hundred would mean you have an agenda. Goddess forbid. All I said was that it's the parents' choice whether or not they want their children to see it. BTW - I said "Christ' then took it down within a couple minutes because I didn't want to offend anyone. Sorry for those of you who saw it via his "quote" that he managed to due during the minute or two it was like that. I guess it's part of my Pagan/New-Age agenda. :p

To respond to gryphon's original question: no, avoiding Disney World does not automatically make a person a gay-hater. I would not take my two young daughters there on that day, and if we discovered that we had planned our vacation to DW on Gay Day, we'd reschedule to another date. I don't dislike gays; but there is still the likelihood that a small percentage of attendees would engage in behavior that I don't feel is appropriate for my children to observe. For the same reason, we vacation at family-friendly places, and we restrict what television shows and movies our kids see.

At its core, this incident was simply an issue of parental discretion - of what is appropriate for children of a certain age to be exposed to, whether it is material of a violent nature, sexual (hetero- or homo-), full of inappropriate language, or other themes more readily processed by a more mature mind. The judge was being pilloried for exercising proper judgment as a parent to determine what was appropriate for his kids. Senator Feinstein shamelessly used the incident to play the "gay card" and turn the issue into a modern day homophobic witch hunt.

"...I saw Goody Goode with a homophobe! I saw Goody Cloyse with a homophobe!..."

Correct Bernard, my comments are based on my personal worldview. In my opinion, we are all in the position I'ved described, whether everyone agrees with it or not. Just because others don't agree with everything that you think, doesn't mean that you don't still see the world through your belief system. Sorry if the implied "IMO" threw you for a loop.

Dwain, as you know, I cannot argue that (although I'll have my opinion about it), since it is belief. It only becomes an issue for me when attempts are made to use religious beliefs to set public policy. I think empirical data should be the basis for policy as much as possible.

_________________________
"Hunger for growth will come to you in the form of a problem." -- unknown

And lashing out is defined as what, as calling someone to account for their statements? And your quotes of my prior answers to the question of why the magazine writer included a few pictures, you find fault with the reason? And as for Mardi Gras, when have I ever defended women exposing themselves for $0.59 beads or peeing in the streets? What's wrong with you?

Quote:

Originally posted by Bernard:So on top of being less-than honest at the outset, you went on to use inflammatory language to portray homosexuals as pornographic and in-your-face.[/b]

How was I less than honest, at the outset or anytime during this thread? And yes, Gay Day is an in-your-face and even pornographic event. And you're denying this?

Tell me, why are you so frustrated? I could offer suggestions but am in fear of TomK's proscribing psychotherapy on the forum.

By the way, Gay Day's founder's name is Doug Swallow. I wonder if that's his real name?

_________________________"If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to."MSU - the university of Michigan!Wheels

Bernard:From my life experience I do not know the answer to whether or not homosexuality is genetic. I would not be surprised if they discover that certain types of homosexuality are genetic, and I would not be surprised if they find that some are from the "environment". Like I said, I don't think there is just one type of homosexuality or one type of heterosexuality and I have known too many people who were mixed. Like I stated over a year ago in a different thread, I have undertaken an inner journey and it is one that has reaped many rewards and benefits, regardless what I ultimately discover.

Jolly made a statement a couple of pages back, that if a child was "on the fence" in terms of wondering about sexual orientation, that he would gently try to steer him/her toward heterosexuality. You would agree with this, or not? (hope I've paraphrased Jolly's point correctly).

If you do agree, then how does one -- parent of, or young adult -- determine whether the person in question is genetically predisposed, or whether they are for whatever reason, playing the field (so to speak)?

As for your statement regarding psychology as a science, I disagree with the premise so can't agree or disagree, as I do not consider psychology a science other than by methodology.

Originally posted by Derick:there are 604 pictures of Gay Day on the website Gryphon got those pictures from. And I, looked at each and every one of them[/b]

Holy cow, you're right! I never even knew that, I got the links from the articles. So you viewed every one, eh? Too much for me. However, I see there are links for seven previous years of Gay Day as well.

_________________________"If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to."MSU - the university of Michigan!Wheels

Jolly made a statement a couple of pages back, that if a child was "on the fence" in terms of wondering about sexual orientation, that he would gently try to steer him/her toward heterosexuality. You would agree with this, or not? (hope I've paraphrased Jolly's point correctly).

I do not think it is possible for anyone to 'gently' steer another person towards a sexuality. I came to the realization, through my own experiences that I was more complicated than not, and the initiative to take an inner journey was my own. If you have a son or daughter who you suspect is gay, you must have every faith that they will find their way in life. (And if you love them unconditionally, you will have made it a thousand times easier for them.)

It is possible that a young person such as Peggy's hypothetical example could be unhappy and feels misunderstood which is why I thought the idea of psychotherapy sessions together would be a good thing.

Let me ask you, when you were 12 or 13'ish, did you feel that you could be persuaded by anyone to be something other than who you were? I suspect the answer is no. If the answer could have been yes, I also suspect the illusion would not have lasted too long--we eventually want to be who we really are.

If some young person actually did come up to me and say that they didn't know for sure if they were straight or gay, my first reaction would probably be to ask them if they had a boyfriend and/or if they had a girlfriend, if I felt it was appropriate to ask. I might ask them why they think they might be straight or why they think they may be gay. Depending on the answer, then I might ask if they'd like to talk to a psychiatrist about it. The rest would depend on the answer.

Quote:

If you do agree, then how does one -- parent of, or young adult -- determine whether the person in question is genetically predisposed, or whether they are for whatever reason, playing the field (so to speak)?

I don't think it is possible at the present time to determine whether the person is genetically predisposed and I doubt that a heterosexual is going to be "playing the field". No matter what, if it were my child I would say enjoy, but 1) be sincere, and 2) protect yourself.

_________________________
"Hunger for growth will come to you in the form of a problem." -- unknown

Posted by Bernard: It only becomes an issue for me when attempts are made to use religious beliefs to set public policy.[/b]

By the way, I agree with you on this.

Quote:

And posted earlier by Bernard: that owing to my messed up childhood (among other things I was raised very stict catholic), I spent 6 years in psychotherapy and 14 years in psychoanalysis devling into myself.[/b]

And two more things we have in common, I was also raised in a strict Catholic home, and it was wonderful, so wonderful in fact that some would posit that even in middle age, I still haven't left it.

And while I've never been in therapy, my wife and I are the Godparents and willed as legal guardians (in case of death of the parents) of a child of a child psychiatrist at Children's Hospital at Harvard.

Posted by Bernard: It only becomes an issue for me when attempts are made to use religious beliefs to set public policy.[/b]

By the way, I agree with you on this.[/b]

Actually, I disagree with you both. The arena of setting public policy is all about the clash and debate of people's personal beliefs, whether they are based on religious or merely moral/ethical grounds. We all argue for what we believe to be right. As to setting public policy based on "empirical data," all tests must be established by humans who filter the methods of their tests through their own value system; and the results must be analyzed by humans operating in the same manner. Then, the analysis will be read, and agreed with or disputed by other humans, filtering their interpretation through their own personal beliefs. So "empirical" data is often not so empirical at all. And many public policy issues are not quite so pure as a mathematical equation. There would be no need for democracy if public policy could be reduced to pouring a few chemicals into a test tube and obtaining the perfect answer to a legislative question.

Establishing public policy isn't science; it's the ongoing debate of differing personal religious and other worldviews in the public arena. Injecting one's personal beliefs, religious or otherwise, into the formation of public policy is the defining reason for democracy. I'm not offended by you, or anyone else advocating for a public policy that parallels your belief system, and I would expect others to be equally unoffended if I advocate for a differing public policy that parallels my worldview, regardless of whether the origin of those views is religious.

I refuse to accept the truly fascist notion that my opinions (or anyone's)should be discounted from public debate solely on the basis of their having religious roots. This leads to the bizarre notion that I could have a viewpoint for nonreligious grounds, and it would be acceptable in debating public policy - but if I held the exact same position on religious grounds, my voice - my vote - would not be permitted to be heard. That idea scares the hell out of me, and it should you, too.

I was understanding Bernard to say that overt use of religion should not be used as a basis for civil law. I don't believe the Baptist code should have any direct influence on the laws of Alabama, let's say.

If a good Baptist becomes the governor of Alabama I believe he must execute the laws of Alabama even if they are in contradiction to his religious beliefs (of course he always could resign if the problem was too great.)

On the other hand I do think that as citizens we can and should vote our moral beliefs regardless from where they originate, religion, rationalism or even self interest. But, it should be kept a fair playing field at all times. It's those checks and balances that keep us free.

And I think that here in the USA that's pretty much the way things are set up.

It's the true genius of the Constitution how little problem we have with all this.

(2) If you dispute the scientific nature of psychology, you're pretty uninformed of the nature of research which requires replication.The nature of most psychological research is to disprove a particular theory.

(3) There is a great deal of work which has been done indicating that not only sexual orientation, but "gender appropriate" behavior is determined in utero. Both appear to be related to fetal receptivity to testosterone flooding.

(4) To the best of my knowledge of the literature--I acknowledge there is some I have not read--there is nothing to indicate that a child can be "on the fence" and pushed one way or the other.

(5) The Bell Curve spoken of earlier in relation to sexual attraction I think was drawn from the Kinsey Studies which are pretty generally known to be seriously flawed. The sample was heavily skewed by the inclusion of a large number of sociopathic subjects.

The most comprehensive complilation of the scientific work on sexual orientation has been mady by Cheryl Wield, PhD (Physiology) who has recently retired from the faclty at Lousiana State University.

In my journeys this week I found this site which I thought was a very interesting read, if nothing else: Nation of Gay Babies

He talks alot about hormones affecting the development of the hypothalamus, etc. etc. I suppose this is what Tony was referring to. It's a good read but I think the author has issues. First of all, he really has it in for Psychiatrists which makes me sad because the profession has done wonders for me (I cannot fathom where I'd be today if it were not for the 6 years of bioenergetics and 14 of psychoanalysis. There is something akin to magic that occurs during the process of therapy and I have gained some insights about myself that I would not have reached had I not been able to trust completely in my psychiatrist (not to be judged by the lines I wrote above--I should not have attempted to condense my whole sex life into a single sentence--what was I thinking of? I'm a bit more complicated than that!). To me this is one of the things that makes psychiatry different than talking to just any friend. I could never have trusted anyone except a therapist with the issues I had.

The author also talks about the brain being hard-wired and incapable of change. Of course I'm no neurologist but I really question that. I know from my experience that the mind can change, I mean if it couldn't psychiatry wouldn't work at all--but it does.

I must say that bioenergetic therapy didn't work all that well for me because of the "somewhat" aggressive hands-on. But what I have discovered is that the Alexander Technique is just gentle enough, but strong enough to work very well. Along with the work I do at the piano, I've reached places and recovered parts of myself that I never even realized were "me"!!

Anyway, if you have the time and inclination, maybe you'll find the article useful. As I was reading it I kept thinking, this would make a good script for a Bill Moyers show!

_________________________
"Hunger for growth will come to you in the form of a problem." -- unknown